A local authority's failure to act on a purchase notice within the statutory timeframe allows the landowner unfettered rights to proceed with the use of the land.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed with the following prayers:

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ or order quashing Exhibit P2 communication issued by the 2nd respondent;

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to consider the application for building permit submitted by the petitioner dehors the publication of master plan;

iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ or order directing the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of Exhibit P3 application within a time frame as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

iv) Pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court shall deem just.”

(SIC)

2. The petitioner is the owner of a property having an extent of 4.60 Ares in Sy.No.445/1-12 of Lokamaleswaram Village covered by Exchange Deed No.685/2024 of Kodungallur SRO. The 2^nd respondent rejected the application for building permit submitted by her because of the reason that, if the building permit application is allowed, it will be against the master plan in force. The petitioner issued Ext.P3 purchase notice in accordance to Section 67 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act , 2016. Admittedly, no orders are passed in Ext.P3 after the statutory period of 60 days. Hence, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Heard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the Municipality.

4. The counsel for the petitioner relied the judgment of this Court in WP(C) No.27342/2023 dated 18.03.2024. The relevant portion of the abovesiad judgment is extracted hereunder:

“6. Though the petitioner has submitted Ext.P5 purchase notice, admittedly, no orders have been passed thereon within the period mandated under Section 67 (2) of the Act and the property has not been decided to be acquired. Therefore, the legal consequences contemplated under (2) of the Act have to follow. A Division Bench of this Court in District Town Planner, Malappuram and Others v. Vinod and Others [ 2019 (3) KHC 673 ], considering the scope of of the Act, has held as follows:-

“10. The provisions of Section 67 of the Act, 2016 are intended to balance the conflicting rights of the State and the private individual. While the State has the right to reserve lands for development proposals in public interest, the said right cannot be exercised in a manner designed to frustrate the Constitutional rights of the private individual under Article 300A, to deal with his property in the manner he chooses. A balance is therefore struck by directing the State to take affirmative action for implementing the proposal within a specified time - frame, failing which, the private individual is to be given the unfettered freedom to use his land for other permissible purposes.”

7. Another Division Bench of this Court, in Town Planner, District Town Planning Officer v. Joseph Jacob [2023 KHC 145 : 2023 (2) KLT 35 ], has held that once a purchase notice is issued and the authority failed to act within the time as stipulated under the statute, the right is crystallised on the land owner to use the land for any purpose in accordance with law and he is not bound by the approved master plan or the DTP Scheme. The Court observed as follows:-

“10. The proviso to Section 67 of the Act stipulates the local authority to act upon the applications for building permits etc. in consultation with the Chief Town Planner. This is only to ensure that Chief Town Planner is put on notice in regard, not acquiring the land which was proposed to be acquired in the Master Plan or DTP Scheme. That itself is not an embargo for the local authority in acting upon the building permit application in accordance with law. 11. It is also to be noted that the consultation referred to in proviso to of the Act cannot b